America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, well before we gaveled in to last week's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, our friends in the mainstream media had made it clear what the approved narrative was going to be. According to them, we were supposed to talk about what a historic moment it was and what a historic nominee Judge Jackson is.

My Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee spent most of their time focusing on the approved talking points memo, but those of us who didn't play along were punished in print.

But, back home in Tennessee, these unhinged attacks by the media went over like a lead balloon, and I think my Democratic colleagues would benefit from listening to what people outside of Washington, DC, have to say because they--the people--are the ones who will bear the practical consequences of what happens here in DC.

Now, on Thursday, my Democratic colleagues declared victory for Judge Jackson, but Tennesseans I talked to this weekend still have a lot of questions. They expected more from her. They don't appreciate being called racist for saying they expected more. They wanted her to answer tough questions about the Constitution. They wanted assurance that a Justice Jackson would protect their constitutional rights.

They have no problem with having a former public defender on the Court. That could even be a good thing. But they wanted her to account for her record of granting light sentences to dangerous criminals. Why did she choose to let some of them out of jail on compassionate release?

I asked those questions, and I commend all of my colleagues on the committee who dug in and did the same thing. Many of my Democratic colleagues, on the other hand, accused us of ``tarnishing'' their historic moment. But Tennesseans didn't see it that way. They say it was the Democrats who tarnished the proceedings by ignoring their duty to vet Judge Jackson, who is up for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. They feel it was the media that tarnished the moment by politicizing--politicizing--the hearings.

Now, I cannot support Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, but I am withholding my support for reasons my Democratic colleagues and the media have chosen to ignore. For all the focus my colleagues placed on ``judicial philosophy'' in previous confirmation hearings, I had hoped that Judge Jackson would come ready to tell us about hers, but she didn't. Instead, she came armed with a methodology that spoke to the thoroughness of her process but said very little about her approach to constitutional interpretation.

After the hysteria that broke out during Justice Barrett's hearings about the so-called dangers of originalism, I thought we might discover what sort of jurist my Democratic colleagues think would be more effective than a constitutionalist. But oh no--to ask that--you are not supposed to do that.

But, suddenly, judicial philosophy meant nothing. As I said, don't ask that question. What role the Constitution plays in Judge Jackson's ``methodology'' meant nothing to them. Don't ask that question.

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is not a subject the American people are willing to ignore. They want you to ask the questions and get answers. They don't expect to agree with a Justice 100 percent of the time, but they do expect those nominees to adhere to a standard. They want a constitutionalist, not a judicial activist, and at this point, they have no idea what rules she will follow if indeed she is confirmed.

All we can do is look at her record. Judge Jackson spent a lot of time defending her work. Tennesseans are just as worried about what she was trying to distance herself from. What did she want us to not know?

Associations are important. You can tell a lot about a person by looking at who their friends are, and, as it turns out, Judge Jackson has some pretty controversial friends.

Over the past few years, we have seen progressive activists use critical race theory to try and redefine our history and change the way Americans view their place in the world. It is a pernicious philosophical lens, and the effect it has on kids in the classroom is weighing heavily on the hearts of Tennessee parents.

Now, in her hearing, Judge Jackson brushed aside my questions about her views on CRT. She wrote it off as an ``academic theory,'' which it is, but my questions were about how she may or may not apply that academic theory to her decisions. Why does she choose to give that academic theory the same weight as administrative law or constitutional law when she is making those decisions?

One particular item she tried to distance herself from is her praise for the so-called progressive curriculum at Georgetown Day School, where she sits on the board. Here is what she said in the winter 2019 edition of the school's magazine.

Since becoming part of the GDS community 7 years ago, I have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous progressive education.

As Judge Jackson pointed out, Georgetown Day is a private school--an elite private school. They can teach what they want, and parents can choose to take their kids out and go elsewhere if they don't like it.

But here is the wrinkle. It is getting harder for parents in Tennessee to do that because so-called progressive education is taking over public schools also. And part of that progressive education requires getting in between parents and their children.

Here is why it was so important to air this out during a confirmation hearing. We were examining a nominee who has spent nearly a decade on the bench yet cannot describe her fundamental approach to the law--not her approach to deciding cases or sentencing criminals but to reading and interpreting the Constitution.

So when Tennesseans hear a nominee refuse to answer these questions-- when she gives an opening statement and talks about how she makes decisions by starting from a point of neutrality, by looking at the facts of the case, by looking at precedent, you have to say: Where does the Constitution fit into your decision?

At the same time that she is practicing that methodology of deciding cases, she is associating herself with philosophies meant to divide children from their parents. They feel entitled to know what role these associations are going to play in her decision matrix.

Questions are not attacks, and that is a point that needs to be made. To ask questions is not an attack. How do we keep our Nation free and strong? We do it by robust, respectful debate. That requires that you ask questions of individuals who come before you, that you ask questions of individuals who have a different opinion than you have or who hold a different political or governmental philosophy than you hold. Questions are not attacks.

Challenging the application of CRT in elementary school classes is not ``racism.'' Standing firm on the definition of ``woman'' is not ``transphobia.'' This isn't personal. We are talking about a lifetime appointment, and the people deserve to know who this nominee is and what she believes.

I thought it was so interesting that so regularly through the hearing, people would reference her background and her family and the strong connections as part of what makes her who she is and informs her decisionmaking and how important that is. The letters of support to her all mention that. But if you question some of this, then the media, then my Democratic colleagues say that is an attack. No, my friends, it is not. It is not an attack because words have meaning. You don't leave words like ``parenthood'' and ``womanhood'' up for interpretation. You know what they mean.

Judge Jackson had 3 days to convince this country that her methodology--not her judicial philosophy but her methodology--can help her answer these questions. In my opinion, she failed at that task.

In this building, I don't speak for myself; I speak for the people of the great State of Tennessee. I cannot in good conscience give their endorsement to a nominee who by all accounts is legally and constitutionally adrift. What is her standard? We still don't know. What keeps her grounded in the law? We are not sure about that one either. What keeps her from infusing politics into her rulings? We don't have an answer for that. Those are things that, this weekend, Tennesseans would say: I want to know this.

My Democratic colleagues don't want to talk about this; neither does the media. They have spent their time whipping up people, looking for outrage, looking for click bait. But here is what I will say in conclusion: Every single one of Judge Jackson's contemporaries have been more than happy to answer these questions. They do regularly as they have come before us for Supreme Court confirmation hearings. So why will not Judge Jackson?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source